TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondents, permitting the 1st respondent to withdraw an earlier order passed by him, would tantamount to blessing an illegality that is committed by the 1st respondent, in that it would amount to permitting the 1st respondent to exercise a power to review, which is not conferred under the Statute. Ext.P5 order is quashed, to the limited extent that it withdraws Ext.P4 earlier order of clarification. - WP(C).No. 28382 of 2017 (W) - - - Dated:- 22-11-2017 - Mr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar Harisankar V. Menem and Smt. Meera V. Menon for the petitioner. Shamsudheen V. K., Government Pleader and K. I. Mayankutty Mather for the respondents. JUDGMENT The petitioner and the additional 4th respondent are persons engaged in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to withdraw its earlier clarification (Ext.P4). The correctness of Ext.P6 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was doubted by another Division Bench, while considering Writ Petition 7891 of 2017, wherein by an interim order dated 06.04.2017, the latter Division Bench, prima facie, found force in the contention of the assessee that in the case of hoardings, the immovable nature of the property would have to be considered while examining the issue as to whether a tax liability under the head of transfer of right to use goods would be attracted. The writ petition was therefore, posted along with connected writ petitions and the interim stay against further proceedings issued by the Intelligence Wing of the Commercial Tax Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication (Ext.P4) cannot be legally sustained, since the power of review is one, that has to be specifically conferred under a Statute on the authority seeking to exercise it, and in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the authority for clarification does not have the power to review its own earlier order. In this connection, I must also note the submission of the learned Government Pleader that, in terms of Section 94(4) of the Act, where any question arises from any order already passed or any proceedings recorded under this Act or any earlier law, no such question shall be entertained under Sub Section 1 by the authority for clarification. The contention, in other words, is that in the light of Ext.P6 judgment that already exis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
